Ancient Chinese Rules And Philosophy

Path: PhilosophyAndGo   · Prev: PhilosophyOfGo   · Next: DoesKamiNoItteExist
    Keywords: Rules, Culture & History

In ancient Chinese philosophy, Black is Yin and White is Yang.

See also

Table of contents Table of diagrams
Qi Example
Black captures
Result
example game 1, moves (1 _ 10)
example game 1, moves (11 - 20)
example game 1, moves (21 - 30)
example game 1, moves (31 - 36)
example game 2, moves (25 _ 34)
Result

Yin and Yang

Yin and Yang are unity in opposition. If you put down a stone first, then your opponent puts down a stone. Passing is prohibited. The number of moves is even. This is an important principle.

Under Japanese rules, however, you are allowed to pass. This does not comply with ancient Chinese philosophy.

Virtual Moves

When you don't have any liberties to fill in, a virtual move is needed. A virtual move is a legal move. These virtual moves are not put down on the board, they are captured by the opponent directly [1]. Please notice the difference between "virtual move" and "pass". After two virtual moves in a row, the game is over. The player who has captured more stones wins the game.

Qi

In ancient Chinese rules, the basic two liberties (qi) of a group (needed to make life) are not real territory. [2]

More accurately, if a group has no qi, it will be removed from the board (die), and if a "one eyed" or "eyeless" group has some liberties (qi),and your opponent has not taken away ALL liberties of the "one eye group" or "no eye group" by some moves, the group is still living on the board, despite having only one eye or no any eye!

[Diagram]

Qi Example

White (marked) has not died, she is alive on the board.

[Diagram]

Black captures

B3=1,then B4 removes White's group
After some moves, White will die.

[Diagram]

Result


A Chinese weiqi proverb:"there are qi, a group is living on the board, there are no qi,a group is removed from the board." (有气则生,无气则亡)Generally, if a group is alive on the board forever, it must have two eyes. In some special cases, a group which has only one liberty still can live on the board forever. [3]

The Group Tax Effect

zhanghu: Why are the basic two liberties of a group not real territory in ancient Chinese rules? For example:
in a 0 komi game

In Japanese and modern Chinese rules it is a tied (jigo) game. But in ancient Chinese rules, Black will win the game. This is because, if Black wants to continue the game, White cannot pass. Again the important principle here is: Yin and Yang are unity in opposition, therefore you can not abandon your move (pass). So, when Black plays the (m+n+1)th additional stone, White will fill stone in the basic libertiy (qi) of her groups!

Because of the above reason, when we count the territory [21], we cannot count the basic liberties of a group into someone's territory. So, cutting your opponent's stones into two groups has two points value. This is why the group tax is reasonable.

In Japanese rules, cutting doesn't have any value,unless a group of your opponent dies.

If in a game, Black and White have the same amount of territory (not including the basic two liberties of a group), and Black occupies the last dame on the board, then the next move, White has to put down a stone in her or her opponent's territory. In ancient China, the above example results in a tie. That is fair.

Ancient Chinese people liked a tied game. Yin and Yang are in a congruency situation. The last dame which Black occupies on the board, must be shared with Black and White. [4]

The ancient Chinese weiqi rules embody the essence of WeiQi.

--- [Zhang Hu | zhanghu



Example Games

Here you can find a simple example game.

Bill: As far as I can tell, these are not examples of what Zhang Hu is talking about.

[Diagram]

example game 1, moves (1 _ 10)

[Diagram]

example game 1, moves (11 - 20)

[Diagram]

example game 1, moves (21 - 30)

[Diagram]

example game 1, moves (31 - 36)

W2, W4, B5 and W6 are virtual moves.

The final count is, according to

Black: 17 stones on the board
White: 15 stones on the board

--> black has won by a margin of 2

Black: 17 + 2 = 19 points are conquered by black.
White: 15 + 2 = 17 points are conquered by white

--> black has won by a margin of 2

Black: 2 territory + 3 captives = 5
White: 2 territory + 1 captives = 3

--> black has won by a margin of 2.

The results are all the same, because the number of white and black groups is equal. [5]




To show the difference, now another game (just the last part):

[Diagram]

example game 2, moves (25 _ 34)

B5, B7, B9 and W0 are virtual moves.


The final count is, according to

Black: 14 stones on the board
White: 16 stones on the board

--> white has won by a margin of 2

Black: 14 + 4 = 18 points are conquered by black.
White: 16 + 2 = 18 points are conquered by white

--> the game is a tie

Black: 4 territory + 1 captives = 5
White: 2 territory + 3 captives = 5

--> the game is a tie.

Here, stone scoring results in a disadvantage to black because there are more black groups than white ones.

(You see, much less counting, but much more filling. :--)


Questions & Answers

[Diagram]

Result

If playing Chinese scoring wouldn't black want to do something like this? The number of stones count and territory does not... I would want to fill my own territories to get more points. That is if it were just stones counted, but because territory includes stones and empty intersections the balance is broken between having to have an even number of black and white stones on the board.

rubilia:

- The players don't have to really fill all their empty territory with own stones. If it's clear which intersections can be covered whenever wanted, it's enough to count the remainder after one side's territory is filled. That's similar to todays removement of dead groups, which usually is omitted as well.

- The total count of moves is balanced by rule, but one side may have more stones on the board while the other one played more virtual moves.


Remarks & Discussion

[0]

Robert Pauli:

rubilia: Eh, "tricks"? I simply didn't know there's already a page dealing with StoneScoring, and didn't want to write a whole new one right now. Anyway, now I've found it, and the alias is adapted.

Robert Pauli:


[1]

rubilia: Btw, the concept of virtual moves has come back into our times, in order to allow equivalence of Japanese and (modern) Chinese scoring in the AGA rules. It's called "passing stones" there.

Robert Pauli: See pass stone.

Bill: I think a lot of this page is Zhang Hu's speculation. Virtual moves, for instance.

Robert Pauli: Yes (even if the trick to count off instead on the board could very well have been in use). That's why I'd like to see his name under his text. Who purged it ? I'll put it back . . .


[2]

MortenPahle: Keep in mind that, using these rules, empty intersections and stones are counted as territory, otherwise the example below makes no sense.

Robert Pauli: Don't confuse it, Morten. Only fillable empty intersections are "counted". Necessary eyes, "basic two liberties" as he calls it, shouldn't be filled and therefore don't help you to avoid passing over a stone.
zhanghu: "territory" is not a correct word? because of my poor English. Please amend it.
MortenPahle: No, 'territory' is fine, but most people (?) are used to thinking of only 'empty intersections' as territory :-) - Morten
rubilia: Hmm, I think, it *IS* confusing to use the term "territory" in such an uncommon sense. (See the question at bottom of this page, for an example.) We better should use "area" when talking about "empty intersections and stones".

Bill: Except that he does mean territory. Stones were apparently not counted in the most ancient rules we know of (before the Ming Dynasty). Elsewhere on SL, I believe, John Fairbairn suggests that stone counting may have coexisted with territory scoring in pre-Ming times.

zhanghu: In rules of Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty, territory includes empty intersections and stones. Ming Qing rules are similar to modern Chinese rules, but Ming Qing Area rules include "one intersection" group tax.

Ming Qing Area rules developed from Tang Song rules.

the "ancient" Chinese rules which I am talking about are those used in the Tang Dynasty and Song Dynasty and even earlier.

In these rules,territory does not include stones. Japanese rules are similar to the "ancient" Chinese rules, but the "ancient" Chinese rules include a group tax.

[21] rubilia: As far as I know, the main idea of ancient Chinese scoring is StoneScoring and, hence, quite the opposite, actually.

Bill: As far as we can tell, Stone Counting arose during the Ming Dynasty. I believe that Hu is going back to a more ancient time, when it appears that stones were not scored. (During that time go came to Japan, which still uses territory scoring.)

There is a clue in Hu's use of m+n+4 to refer to the score of a jigo, instead of 180.

The goal of each side's play is to place as many stones on the board as possible. Due to the necessity of at least two liberties per chain (that is, either two separate one-intersection eyes or, in seki, either one eye and one shared liberty or two shared liberties), the intersection being not coverable by any stones remain neutral.

That's where, when trying to express the differences in later Chinese (area) scoring, the group tax actually came from.

Since the overall move tally is zero (including virtual moves, both players play the same count of stones), stone scoring equals even Japanese (territory) scoring with a tax being applied to each group. So, right, after all you get the correct count by the empty intersections, minus two per group. :-) (Counting board points instead of margins, that is one per group.)

However, the term "group-tax" is far from being sufficiently precise, as can be seen in various cases of (more or less sophisticated) sekis.


[3]

... if your opponent has not removed your "one-eyed group" by two moves ... or maybe I don't understand this -- Dieter

Robert Pauli: Guess he simply means seki, not ?


[4]

I don't see this... If White puts down a stone in her own territory, she will lose by 1 point, no? If she puts down a stone in Black's territory (and Black responds and White cannot pass afterwards) she will, eventually, still lose by 1 point, no? - MortenPahle

19x19=361,but the number of moves is even. Black will occupy the last dame, but it is unfair. So,the last dame is shared,

in Tang and Song Dynasty territory rules, it is a tied game. It is a special case,isn't it? But in Chinese Ming or Qing Dynasty stone counting rules, Black wins the game. I don't think this is reasonable. - zhanghu

Ahh. Yes, I see. Yet another reason why gobans should be (odd number) square :-) - Morten

Robert Pauli: Sorry, with no extra rule the last dame is not shared: B fills, W passes, B passes, W passes: W gave two, B just one.


[5]

Robert Pauli: Your example, rubilia:

rubilia: I chose "scoring" intentionally, because I was well aware of this difference. :) The calculation isn't meant to show any particular counting technique here, like filling prisoners into territory, pointwise counting on the board or anything like that, but sticks to what the scores are determined by: territory + captives for territory scoring, conquered board points for area scoring, maximal number of placable living stones for stone scoring. You can apply various taxes to any game, not affecting the scoring basics but the score only, can't you? A pass-tax e. g., adapts the result of territory scoring to the one of area scoring within an accuracy of 1 point, while an empty-triangle tax does not. In zero move tally games, a group tax can adapt both area and territory scoring to stone scoring. Anyway - I took the "territory-counting" stone scoring suggested by zhanghu for an explanatory mistake and attempted to correct it, but now I see that I might have been the wrong part. I didn't read carefully that he was referring to even earlier times. However, it's hard to believe that the group tax was invented while counting (empty) territory rather than stones. It would be really helpful to get access to the sources.

Bill: How group tax might have come about with territory scoring is a question I have pondered. Territory scoring with a group tax is similar to no pass go, but there is no evidence that that was an ancient form. A group tax might explain why eyes are not counted in seki under Japanese rules. (However, non-essential eyes in seki, which can safely be filled, would count in no pass go. Is a puzzlement. <shrug>)


Does anyone have a picture of the "Wu Diagram" earliest recorded Go game (around 250 AD 1118 years before the Ming) this would make it early Han Dynasty this should show if the Chinese used stone counting or intersections as territory.


What is the relation between 1) Yin/Yang + Virtual-stones + Qi and 2) Prisoner-counting for Stone-scoring? --RobertJasiek


ilan: Here is the Ancient Chinese Secret revealed [ext] http://dt.prohosting.com/70s/adulttv/calgon.au


Path: PhilosophyAndGo   · Prev: PhilosophyOfGo   · Next: DoesKamiNoItteExist
This is a copy of the living page "Ancient Chinese Rules And Philosophy" at Sensei's Library.
(OC) 2004 the Authors, published under the OpenContent License V1.0.
[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]
StartingPoints
ReferenceSection
About